User talk:Kelly/Archives/2008/May

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Response

I have responded here. I have pointed out pictures that are inside of buildings (which don't count as being on public property) and those which can be considered "artistic works " according to "Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship fall into a different copyright category from artistic works such as paintings, photographs, drawings and the like. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to artistic works such as for example murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder."

I hope what I have said makes sense. I just want to make sure that the appropriate tags are placed on the images to ensure that there wont be problems with them later. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that. I just think the London Eye counts as a public structure under UK law, but I'm not a lawyer. Kelly hi! 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The London Eye is just one of the various pictures listed. I bring this up based on London possibly going up for FA review and the need to ensure that images have the proper tags before it can be an FA. I hope this makes sense. :) Also, I lack a "commons" account and I don't want one. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Commons:Licensing is protected, so you can ask a question there anonymously. Kelly hi! 05:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I shall look into it tomorrow. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Eiffel.tower.cdmars.arp.jpg

I have just read your message on my Talk page, concerning the above picture, and can see no reason for its speedy deletion. It was taken from the Eiffel Tower and shows the Montparnasse Tower. This picture has a proper description on the Image Description Page, has a proper copyright notice (Public Domain) and works perfectly when I click on its thumbnail in the Tour Montparnasse article, so all seems normal. What's wrong? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the image is on the Commons, the only thing here on the en Wikipedia is a duplicate description. The image you're seeing is showing through from the Commons, the page here can be deleted. Kelly hi! 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with move to Commons

Hi Kelly. Yes, I would like a hand with having a look at the transferred images to see whether or not I've done things right. If you could help me out with that then that would be great. Manxruler (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Peter Woroniecki Image

Kelly, I agree the photo should be cropped. Can an adminstrator replace this with the same image cropped to exclude the persecution in the photo? A released photo was very hard to come by. Otherwise I'll have to track down the non-wikipedian who donated and uploaded it, which would be very difficult. Sorry abbout the content, but the owner/uploader had the only photo of him in his element that provided the most up to date image of him for ID purposes. The original photo I installed in 2005 or 2006 when fair use was less strict was perfect, but it was deleted because of the recent tuning of fair use guidelines for images. Respond here and I'll check back.71.251.184.207 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CG Images

In relation to 2 images which you have templated. In regards to This one I will offer up the copyright status of the images included which are copyrighted (some are not). - Is this what you are asking me to do? This is my own photograph, Thus it is not "fair use", and I am unsure what you are asking me to do? Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal image is not a derivative work as you have claimed. Would a picture someone takes of the Eiffel tower be a derivative work ? No. Public landmarks are allowed to be photographed and considered property of the photographer.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is going on here?

Please see my remarks at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_11#Template:GFDL-presumed-ast - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if we are going over to Commons images, that's fine. Once I saw that these images had been removed from articles, I thought we were going to lose a bunch of images because of minor imperfections in the licensing trail. - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Kelly: as long as you've found appropriate images for all, OK. Most of these were not from the Catalan Wikipedia: they were from the Asturian Wikipedia (hence "ast" in the template) and were of comaraques of Asturias, not Catalonia. - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Contestmap.jpg

You're absolutely right, Kelly. I uploaded that image eons ago, and didn't really understand copyrights at the time. Still don't. Please go ahead and delete it. Savidan 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'Redundant' images

Hi, I've just removed the 'redundant' tags from two images (Image:Corwin, Thomas.jpg and Image:David Herold-rare2.jpg) as the images you claim they are redundant to are actually slightly tighter crops. Maybe I'm just clutching at straws- I say send them to Commons, and see if they believe there should be two. I can see that this one would possibly be more useful than the other in one or two situations. Alternatively, IfD them, or find an admin who's a little more trigger-happy than me. As ever, keep up the good work! J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised I've muddled you with someone else, so that's why my comments seem a little weird if they do. Anyway, basic gist still stands... J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism because you disagree?

Really I'm a vandal because you disagree? What happened to NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly blanking article content against consensus is vandalism. You've been reverted by three different editors now. Kelly hi! 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never blanked article content. I removed non-noteworthy content for an article and gave reasons in the discussion board. If you want to debate my edits that is the place for it, not accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I can understand removing the material once before going to the talk page. Repeating the removal when other editors clearly disagree is disruptive. Please convince others on the article's talk page before making such a drastic change. Kelly hi! 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Related user question

Are you in any way related to User:Kelly Martin?

Please do not infer any negative connotations from my question. when I first saw your name in page histories I thought Kelly Martin had renamed herself. (Your namesake had a colourful history around English Wikipedia.) Regards, Pegasus «C¦T» 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've never heard of her. Kelly hi! 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see you do a lot of image tagging stuff. Keep up the good work. :) Pegasus «C¦T» 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"On Commons" images

Just tag them with {{db-i8}}.

(Assuming you use Manske's uploader bot to move those so that the licensing info and upload history is preserved on the Commons copy.) Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Tucker image

I must have made a mistake when I uploaded the image long ago. Back then I assumed anything in the creative commons was useable on Wikipedia. Sorry. Go ahead and remove it if necessary. –Victor (talk) (works) 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jade_Kwan_001s_.jpg

This image has been granted from the copyright holder, Jade Kwan, to be freely published in Wikipedia. Vincentkhm 17 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 06:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please e-mail the release to permissions AT wikimedia.org. Kelly hi! 06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PDF files

Hi. I am needing help regarding pdf files that have been uploaded as images. I'm sorting images related to vehicles and have noticed that there are a few of these floating around. I came to you because I saw you've done some work with images at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. Any ideas (for deletion)? E_dog95 Hi 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I normally just list them at WP:IFD if they are obviously copyvio. Kelly hi! 06:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
They're now speediable, {{db-i10}}. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Kelly hi! 13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PUI listings

Just to let you know that you shouldn't list PUI images on IFD - they automatically become deletable after 14 days. However, that deletion category has become backlogged. I'm clearing it out at the moment. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I thought PUI had died out or something. Kelly hi! 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

It is fine. --Bhadani (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly

So are you actually going to present an argument defending your censorship on the page, or do you support Croc's non-argument that "we outnumber you so we don't need no stinking arguments"? I'd be happy to engage you in civil discourse on the issue but it doesn't seem like you're interested in that. csloat (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied at the article talk page, let's keep the discussion there instead of forking it. Kelly hi! 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. csloat (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Pigott image

Mark Pigott is the owner of the copyright to the picture. He has granted permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the picture under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License by signing a request for permission in my possession. I can send you a copy of the permission documents as a pdf file, if you would like.

There is no reference to a "OTRS Ticket" in Wikipedia's upload instructions. What else do we need to do to make the release under GNU clear?

Thanks, Deborah Erickson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deboraherickson (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Lucy's

No problem. I had originally deleted the article as spam, then resposted to the author's userspace so s/he could improve it. Author then ignored the article for 9 months. Good catch (how did you find it?). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed-with-disclaimers

I've deleted Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed-with-disclaimers per the TFD discussion that you initiated. As I was checking the "whatlinkshere" for the template, I noticed that the template is transcluded on a subpage of your user page: User:Kelly/Image license templates. Since you seem to be using the page as a directory of image license templates, I wasn't sure whether to remove the transclusion or leave it (I noticed that you have a few other redlinked templates transcluded on that page). I just wanted to let you know, so that you yourself could make the decision to remove or retain the template link. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - please just leave it for now. I'm working toward standardization of license templates. Kelly hi! 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, then. Best of luck. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-1.2-en

Not a problem to do the changes - could you let me know exactly what code is required please. I haven't had an opportunity to look at the {{imbox}} and associated templates in detail yet, so I'm not sure how it works. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Wolfram-screenshot}}

FYI, I emailed Wolfram to ask them what was the legal status of images created using Mathematica, and they confirmed that users had the sole copyright of the rendering as long as they are the authors. I'm gonna update the image to put an attribution tag, since unfortunately the user seems kinda inactive and I would hate to have to delete it. :) -- lucasbfr talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Kelly hi! 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Joke edit

Yes, it was a joke. Sorry. - Jack's Revenge (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cains Ballroom Tulsa.jpg

Ok, I am thoroughly confused on the issue here. What exactly is the issue? I see its been deleted from Wikipedia, but remains on the Commons? Was this the reason for deletion? You said it was a suspected copyright violation. Yet, the image clearly shows that I took the picture. So what exactly is the problem, or is there one? Thanks.↔NMajdan•talk 13:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personally I had Kelly try and flag three images in my Quantel article. Even though all pictures have been allowed in the public domain by the manufacturer. Kelly said they could easily be replaced by 'free' ones. Given that one photo was taken in the 1970s of something no longer sold and another would require trespassing on said companies property to take a 'free' photo I think I am okay! BackStagePass (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue, Kelly.↔NMajdan•talk 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Leather so soft

Check this out. I think based on the rational given and the use of the photo being encouraged by the record label, this pic is all good. --Endless Dan 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied there and removed the tags, thanks. I corrected the license and added to the rationale. Kelly hi! 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Gnarley. Check this one. Can you removed the tag per your comments? --Endless Dan 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Kelly hi! 16:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And these two. They're mugshots with an appropriate rationale. I believe that makes em public. But you're the expert - so what's the dealio? --Endless Dan 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with those is that they're being used in an infobox to show the appearance of the people, which I think makes them replaceable. Basically you have to make some kind of argument on the image pages why they can't be replaced with free images. Are these people incarcerated? Kelly hi! 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved em. Are they cool now? --Endless Dan 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Ah, I see they're no longer in the infoboxes. I'm still not really positive about their acceptability but I'm willing to accept whatever decision the reviewing admin makes. Kelly hi! 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe they are currently in jail, but pending litigation. I've seen other public figures with mug shots on their info boxes. --Endless Dan 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Me, too - I think I saw one on Paris Hilton a while back. I'm curious to see how the reviewing admin rules because I haven't dealt a lot with copyrighted mugshots and am not sure of the community's policy on that subset of images. Kelly hi! 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there were many New York Giants photos you tagged. Here is one example of many. Now, the tags to Flickr do link the appropriate photo album where these pics are. The uploader of the pics has given permission to use any of the Giants photos - this is per the tags he used in his Flickr account. Will these photos be deleted soon, or is this just a heads up to fix em soon? --Endless Dan 16:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The {{bsr}} tag isn't a deletion tag, it's just a request for a better source. I really did try to find the source image on many of them - this is so they can be moved to Commons. If Flickr images are at Commons, they're safe from deletion if the copyright holder changes the license in the future. (I did copy some of your images, the ones I could find the source image for.) I tried searching on common keywords (like the name of the person in the photo) but didn't have much luck on some of those. If you could possibly provide links to the photo itself on Flickr, I'm happy to verify the licenses and move them out to the Commons. Kelly hi! 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I would - if I could. I have no net access at the moment (explains why I'm on Wikipedia from 8-5, daily) but the albums I linked should contain those photos. Those are really valuable photos to WP:JINTS. I don't wanna see em deleted. --Endless Dan 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I will look some more later - I don't want to see them deleted either. I wouldn't worry for now, like I said that tag isn't a deletion tag. It's kind of like a {{fact}} tag for images. Nobody is pushing for images with that tag to be deleted - there are way too many images with real problems to work on. Kelly hi! 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Kelly. For real, though - do they pay you? You work pretty hard around here. --Endless Dan 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. :) But everyone has to have a hobby, I guess. I have some knowledge about copyrights so I try to contribute in that area. Kelly hi! 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, even if it's just a hobby, your work is appreciated. Even if my talk page looks like Hell. :-) --Endless Dan 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I fixed that, something I should have done yesterday. Kelly hi! 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Kelly!! --Endless Dan 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a new, old problem. A few weeks ago, I came across this commons pic being used for the Jay Lethal article. According to the pic, the person took the pic himself. Eh-eh. That's a screen capture and if you look at the user's other contributions, it appears that the pic is not his own work. I brought this up in Commons Help Desk, but they were no help. I don't have a Commons account. What can be done and what are your thoughts on the legitimacy of this pic?--Endless Dan 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another pic uploaded by the user. A pic this close would not be that grainy. He may have other pics that have already been transfered to Commons, but I am unsure on how to check that. --Endless Dan 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nominated both for deletion. You're right, my gut says those are screencaps. I checked the user's log, nothing else uploaded here at Wikipedia. Will check Commons logs also. Kelly hi! 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Kelly hi! 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)










Stop it

There's no reason to speedy delete the Primavera picture. It seems the deletionists are now running the asylum. Bellwether BC 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text of his email:
Re: MarkBlevis.com contactSunday, December 30, 2007 9:28 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "Mark Blevis" <markblevis@gmail.com>View contact details To: "Kevin Bailey" <kevinscottbailey@yahoo.com>Hey Kevin!
Feel free to use my Elise Primavera photos on Wikipedia. I license them using a Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike license which is very much in line with Wikipedia's community-minded licensing scheme. If you run into problems, let me know. Certainly, I won't go after you.
Mark
And what the hell are you talking about, accusing me of copyright fraud?!? And you expect me to retract a simple statement implying that you are a deletionist?!? Are you or are you not, trying to "delete" a perfectly innocuous picture, that has ZERO chance of getting WP sued? Bellwether BC 22:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind. I'm done. Delete away. Bellwether BC 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ZOMG DRAMAH! Well, it would have been more constructive to work toward a good license on the image, but I wish you well in your retirement. I've never deleted anything, anyway, I'm not an admin. But whatever. Best - Kelly hi! 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:05 Ukradena slika.jpg

Hi, you moved the above mentioned image to commons despite is is a clear copyvio. Edvard Munch dies in 1944, his works are protected by copyright and the drawing is a derivative of his most famous painting of all. I've nominated it for deletion and will suggest to speedy it on commons and here on en. Please learn about copyright and refrain from supporting copyvios. --88.217.93.171 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone apparently impersonated me using CommonsHelper - I didn't transfer that image. There is now a password-protected verification scheme so hopefully that shuts down this kind of copyright fraud in the future. 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

image unfreeness spam

Don't be a nitwit. Read the description of the damn image, and don't bother me. If you want to delete, it, go ahead and delete it, but I don't want to justify the existence of content here. If it really offends you, you are free to delete it and anything else I contribute.

Happy selective amnesia. ... aa:talk 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Image:Cannabis_cultivation_mature_two.jpg...I'd prefer your help in establishing the license on the image, but if you'd rather be hostile about the whole thing, then OK. Kelly hi! 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Quantel images

I guess you're right. It seems a bit silly to delete since we have explicit authorization to use them, but I suppose the best interpretation of current policy is that they should be treated the same as other non-free images. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Flickr Images

Is there a template for images that are uploaded from Flickr that I could used in constructing a bot to check for the validity of a license? I thought that the special:upload page directed users uploading Flickr images to Commons. Let me know, Monobi (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I was wondering how you were finding these Flickr images. Monobi (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Small_bunyapine.jpg

Done. I never personally uploaded it to Commons, some transclusion dude/bot/process did it. Peter1968 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Audrey Munson statue photos

I updated the lince for you.Wikiwikimoore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Giano II

Hi. Can I suggest that the enemies vs. allies dichotomy that you seem to be espousing on Giano's talk page is decidedly unhelpful. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Betsy tag

I saw the Betsy tag. I appreciate the query, I'm definite in supporting copyright. If this is a tropical cyclone image, copyright may be difficult to ascertain. They are certainly downloaded only from U.S. government websites, NWS, NOAA or NHC. I will supply exact URLs when possible. For some images, it's certain that the only way the image was originally created was by government agencies with U.S. satellites, the images lack any other copyrightable content and are fair use. I know we want the source to make it certain. The images present extremely low liklihood of copyright claim and I hope can be left in place until verified. DavidH (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kristen Bell

well she is hot isnt she? no? or are you jealous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.6.248 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Double-tagging commonsised stuff

Hello Kelly. I don't think it serves any useful purpose to double tag images moved to commons with {{db}} as well as {{ncd}}. They'll be deleted eventually. The only reason I could see for bumping things to the top of the queue would be if there is a name clash. Hope this makes sense. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus. I've talked with a few other admins about this, and it does no harm to nominate the occasional MetsBot false negative for deletion manually. Kelly hi! 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan

Removed advert (tag) from the article after editing the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.128.92 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Robert_Livingston_(1708-1790).jpg

I have a message from you indicating that this image may be deleted due to lack of a source. I have searched in vain for a source; back when I uploaded this, I was unaware that sources were required. Consider, though, that the subject died in 1790 and was sufficiently famous that it is exceedingly unlikely that it was not, in fact, published before 1923. Consider also, in the unlikely event that this is a copyrighted image, the likelihood that the copyright holder could claim any real damages-- Britney Spears he ain't; what would happen is that we'd receive a take-down notice and we'd take it down: fini. Note too that it's been up for three years without a problem.

Anyway, if you have to destroy it, so be it. I have been unable to find a replacement image, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

wrestler pics

Am I to understand OTRS never got the releases on these? Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_May_23#Image:Daizee.jpg Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not - there are no ticket numbers on the images, and the uploader was made aware of this some time ago without the issue being resolved. The likely scenario (just guessing here) is that the permission e-mail was submitted but the licensing details were not acceptable for Wikipedia, this happens a lot. Kelly hi! 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, they're gone :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kochi India.jpg

I appreciate your enthusiasm in keeping copyrighted images off Wikipedia. However, regarding this particular image, you tagged it as a speedy only a few days ago. It was apparent that you did not read whatever was written in the license section, or you would have requested me for an OTRS verification rather than paste the boilerplate speedy message on my talk page. Again, you have put the image up for deletion with "OTRS permission claimed, but no ticket #". Well, its hardly been two days since I sent the email. I'd give at least a weeks time before putting up an image that claims OTRS unless you are particularly sure that OTRS has denied permission (which I doubt is the case).--thunderboltz(TALK) 18:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries - images listed at WP:IFD are not processed until at least a week after being listed. You should be fine. Kelly hi! 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and be more careful with such cases in the future. Most people consider it very disturbing to be bothered with boilerplate deletion messages.--thunderboltz(TALK) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No assumption of bad faith here - other people find it very disturbing to see one of the five pillars threatened by unverified copyright claims. Kelly hi! 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I appreciate the work you do no less. My point is only reiterated by your above statement, as you gave me hardly a few days to prove my claim. Please let's avoid any further arguments. Have a good day. Thank you!--thunderboltz(TALK) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand - thought it has been a little more than a few days, the image was uploaded in December of last year. If you have any other uploaded images with similar claims, please forward the permissions. I'll take a look at your other uploaded images to see if there are related problems. But I agree with the above - best wishes to you also. Kelly hi! 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing that right now. Thank you!--thunderboltz(TALK) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)